Just Gimme Some Truth - The Right to Lie?

This is the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. I could show you a different photo and lie to you. Apparently lying has become a component of Free Speech. The recent Court decision which removed the caps on the amount of money donors can give to political candidates and parties; and the anonymity allowed with those donations, in the name of free speech; should give us all pause to think.

The case at hand will now decide whether or not states can make it a crime for political groups to lie about a candidate during an election campaign. And now, with all that new money floating around, you can expect the lies to get even more prevalent. It is hard for me to understand that lies are covered under Free Speech as intended by the Founding Fathers. Those guys fought duels over stuff like this. It was a matter of Honor. Slander and Libel were not readily tolerated in the 18th Century.

Essentially this new case involves an Anti-Abortion group named the Susan B. Anthony List in Ohio. In the 2010 election they attempted to put up a billboard claiming that then-Rep. Steven Driehaus, D-Ohio, supported public funding for abortions under the Affordable Care Act. The ad said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." There was a technicality involved in the truth of that statement and so the billboard company refused the ad. They claimed that it violated the law in Ohio which makes such lies a crime. The foundation then sued the billboard owner for violating his right to free speech.

When they lost the case the Susan B. Anthony group then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, on the grounds that the Ohio law is unconstitutional. They contend that under the Constitution the government cannot decide what false speech is in a political campaign. That makes no sense. And even more confusing is that if they claim that government doesn't have the sense to decide what false speech in a campaign is, then how can the Susan B. Anthony group expect it to be adjudicated in a court of law run by that same government? If the decision goes against them, will they even respect it? 

Some of the arguments arising out of this case are going to be specious at best, and ridiculous at their worst. Take these arguments in support of lying put forth by the Cato Institute and satirist P.J. O'Rourke, who take the position in their brief, that lies; which they call falsehoods; "are cornerstones of American democracy." They begin with the following 5 quotes from the recent past; the italics are mine.

"I am not a crook." (Richard Nixon) But he was, and knew it at the time he said it. And he resigned in disgrace for lying so much about so many things.

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" (George H.W. Bush)  He did raise taxes, and knew he was going to do it when he said he wasn't. As a result he became a one term President.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (Bill Clinton) He did; and was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury. Found not guilty of lying on a technicality he cost his party the election in 2000 and became somewhat of a joke.

"Mission accomplished." (George W. Bush) It wasn't, and we are still mired in the events of post 9/11 as they relate to the costly and unnecessary War in Iraq.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." (Barack Obama) What started out as a good and noble program became bogged down in falsities and ineptness; sullying anything good which he might have accomplished in the area of Health Care Reform.

I guess my point is this; if the government is going to sanction lying in political campaigns doesn't that right eventually extend to everybody and everything? Or, is lying only acceptable when it is done by PAC’s with tons of undocumented money to burn? It’s an interesting question, if only for the fact that the High Court would even consider ruling on such a clear cut topic. But nothing surprises me anymore. This is the same court which claims that it is okay to lie; they call it “misrepresent”; about whether or not you earned any medals while in the military. Or,  if you were even in the military to begin with.

I’m a simple man. John Lennon expressed it best when he sang “Just give me some truth!” That doesn't seem like too much to ask for.

Just Gimme Some Truth

(John Lennon)

I'm sick and tired of hearing things

From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

I've had enough of reading things

By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky

Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me

With just a pocketful of hope

Money for dope

Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things

From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists

All I want is the truth

Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes

Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas

All I want is the truth now

Just gimme some truth

"Teaching Shylock" by Harry Golden (1961)

In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning Sectarian Prayer in Public Forums, the Justices would do well to read the following, which first appeared in the Carolina Israelite in 1961. 

It was first introduced to me by Leonard Herman; the father of a friend; when I was about 15 years old.

The painting above is "Shylock After Trial" by John Gilbert.

"Teaching Shylock" by Harry Golden 

I know that if anyone suggested the censorship of the Merchant Of Venice either as a book or a play I would fight the attempt with everything I have. But having said that, I will also say that, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t teach The Merchant of Venice in secondary schools.

I would use Julius Caesar and Mid-Summer Nights Dream, Macbeth and As You Like It. When the student enters college, The Merchant of Venice, of course, must be read and studied. My view of the secondary schools comes from experience. On several occasions an English teacher in one of the local high schools has asked me to lecture her pupils on the historical background of the Merchant of Venice. This, of course, is wonderful. But the mere fact that a humanitarian schoolteacher felt the need for some background “explanation” is evidence enough that the play should be left to colleges. On each of these occasions I said to myself, how can I stand up before 50 or 60 boys and girls- Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists- and tell them that the Shylock play is a satire on the Gentile Middle Class of Venice? If I even attempted such a course there would be a danger that my words might be interpreted as a lack of respect for the Christian Faiths.

So all I could really do with the background was recite a bit of history of the Middle Ages, and explain the legal processes by which the Jews were forcibly urbanized and driven to dealing with money. I also traced the development of Shylock; how almost from the beginning the English actors recognized Shakespeare’s purpose and as early as the year 1741 Shylock was portrayed on the English stage as the sympathetic figure in the play. On one of these occasions a boy in the class asked me a question: “Mr. Golden, why the Jews? Why have the Jews been picked out for all these terrible things?”

It was a good question, a pertinent question. I looked at the clock and saw that I had two minutes to go. I told the boy I’d sit down and answer his question in my paper and send him a copy. And I’ll do it soon, of course.

Shylock and William Shakespeare

The presentation of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice at Stratford, Ontario has resulted in a wave of comment in the English-Jewish press. There are Jews who dread to see the play produced and protest its presentation. Others feel that Shylock has been drawn with great imaginative penetration and have no objection to its production. Still others are not interested in either way but are against censorship of any kind under any circumstances. This is natural and during each of my lectures on Shakespeare I could always count on the controversy  when we came to the lecture on Shylock.

The German Nazis understood Shakespeare very well, and they did not use Shakespeare’s Shylock in all their gigantic propaganda campaigns. They spent plenty of money in distributing Bud Schulberg’s “What Makes Sammy Run?” but not a single copy  of the Merchant of Venice reached those shores as part of the defamation campaign. The Germans knew. They knew their Shakespeare. German was the first language into which Shakespeare was translated. Now let us go back a little.

You must remember that the Jews had been expelled from England in the year 1290 and they were not readmitted until Oliver Cromwell’s time in1655. Legally that is. Actually the authorities did not enforce the law too rigidly after the ascension of Elizabeth I, a century earlier. Elizabeth sensed that her reign would usher in the age of Gloriana. Trade was the thing. She wanted peace, exploration and trade and commerce. That meant, let up on the discrimination against the guys who knew all about peace, trade and commerce. But Elizabeth had a Jewish doctor, Roderigo Lopez, and this Dr. Lopez was arrested and convicted on the charge of attempting to poison Elizabeth. Let us not get into that at the moment. We have enough to worry about. Let us leave Lopez hanging outside the East gate of London in the winter of 1594. Very likely it was a plot to reactivate the laws against the Jews, which Elizabeth was trying to minimize at the moment. We are not sure. If it was plot, it worked. A wave of Anti-Semitism spread over England. The people who love to have their prejudices confirmed were again reminded of the stereotype of the Jew which had persisted in literature and folklore all through the Middle Ages. Now, to ride the crest of the wave, the balladeers, poets, playwrights and journalists jumped into the act to cash in on the revived Anti-Semitism. Even the two greatest dramatists of the day, already legends in their own time, could not resist this audience interest. Christopher Marlowe wrote The Jew of Malta and on July 22, 1598 , James Roberts entered into the Stationer’s Register “ The Merchant of Venice, or otherwise called The Jewe of Venyce”, by William Shakespeare.

Now, let us start all over again.

All through the Middle Ages thousands of Anti Jew plays were produced all over Europe. These plays are lost to us. They were really nothing. No art. No Value at all. In the main they were poorly improvised or poorly written. “Passion” Plays. They were the standard drama form of the Middle Ages. Their hostility to Jews was based on a simple formula: “this is evil because it is evil.” And no questions asked. All of these cut and dried Anti-Jew plays continued for four hundred years, culminating in the work of a literary giant-

Geoffrey Chaucer – in The Prioress’s Tale. Chaucer was a genius, and he was read and how! From the year 1385 right down to this day in every college you must know Chaucer. Well. Chaucer did us more harm with his few lines about Ritual Murder than all the four hundred years of junk “Passion” plays put together. The myth of the Wandering Jew also flourished through these centuries; a myth of hate, libel and murder. But Chaucer was not the only immortal to have accepted the stereotype of “evil because it is evil.” Christopher Marlowe, one of the giants, also played it straight without a single editorial comment, and Marlowe’s hostility could not have been “Wandering jew” stuff;

He was an outspoken Atheist. And let us not brood too much over the Middle Ages. Let us come right down to Modern Times, and we find Edward Gibbon, the greatest of all historians, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, speak of ritual murder like he was reporting an automobile accident, also without any editorial comment, and even Winwood Reade, in his Martyrdom of Man, who checked every detail of his writings (he even made a special trip to the African Coast just to double check his chapter on Negro slavery). Yet this wonderful man tells how the Jews stole all the Pharaoh’s silverware when they left Egypt . This, he knew. He had footnotes for everything, but for this he didn’t need any footnotes. He was sure. An outspoken Atheist, Mr. Reade held up to scorn and ridicule everything in the Bible except those passages which he could interpret as being unfavorable to the Jews. How can you figure it?

Now let us get started on William Shakespeare and The Merchant of Venice. Mr. Shakespeare was first and foremost Mr. Theatre. He was a craftsman interested in filling his theater; earning dividends for his colleagues and partner-producers and providing a livelihood for his fellow actors. He also wrote a “Jew” Play. But this was Shakespeare! This was not Marlowe, nor Chaucer, nor Gibbon, nor Reade. We are dealing here with the jewel of mankind, the greatest brain ever encased in a human skull.

Shakespeare gave his audience a play in which they could confirm their prejudices- but he did much more. Shakespeare was the first writer in seven hundred years who gave the Jew a “motive”. Why did he need to give the Jew a motive? Certainly his audience did not expect it. For centuries they had been brought up on the stereotype, “this is evil because it’s evil”, and here Shakespeare comes along and goes to so much “unnecessary”

Trouble giving   Shylock a motive.  At last- a motive!

Fair sir, you spit on me Wednesday last;

You spurned me such a day; another time

You called me dog.

Fighting words. Many a Southerner of Anti Bellum days did not bother about getting a “pound of flesh”. He finished his transducer on the spot. But Shakespeare gives us no rest. He is actually writing a satire on the Gentile Middle Class and the Psuedo-Christians, and he wastes no time. What does Antonio, this paragon of Christian virtue, say to this charge of Shylock’s? Does he turn the other cheek? Does he follow the teaching of Jesus to “love thine enemies?” Not by a long shot. This “noble” man replies to Shylock’s charge:

I am as like to call thee so again,

To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.

But Shakespeare has hardly begun. Mr. Poet Philosopher is playing a little game with Mr Theater. Shylock loans Antonio three thousand ducats for three months and demands a pound of flesh as security. This is good. This right up Middle Ages alley, according to the seven hundred year old pattern- “evil because it’s evil”, that’s all.  But Shakespeare does not let his audience off so easily.  He makes them reach for it. In the first place, Shylock loans the money to Antonio without interest. But that’s only the beginning. Since Anti-Semitism is the renunciation of all logic, Shakespeare says if that’s what you want to believe, I’ll not make it easy for you. You must renounce all logic. You must also believe that Shylock loaned the money to the richest man in Venice and that somehow he knew that this rich man would lose all his money in ninety days and couldn’t pay off a debt which was really peanuts to him. How could he possibly know that? A pound of flesh, yes, but how could Shylock  figure that within ninety days a storm in the Persian Gulf and in the Mediterranean , and in the Indian Ocean would suddenly destroy all of Antonio’s ships, all within the same ninety days.

And look here, why does this noble Antonio, the Christian merchant, want the three thousand ducats to begin with? Why did Shakespeare go out of his way to show that Antonio’s request for a loan was based on cheapness and chicanery? He did not have to do that. Certainly not for an Anti-Semetic audience of 1598. He could have contrived a million more noble causes. Patriotism. Antonio needed the money for widows and orphans. Or to defend Venice against an Invader. How the audience would have eaten that up. But Shakespeare refuses to make it that simple. Let us discuss the play from the viewpoint of the audience, like when your children go to the movies. The “good guys” and the “bad guys”.  Antonio and his friends are the “good guys”; Shylock, the Jew, is the “bad guy”. Now what do we have here? Antonio’s friend, Bassanio, one of the “good guys”, is in debt to Antonio. He wants to pay back and he has a scheme.  Portia just inherited a wad of money. If  he can get Portia and her dough all his troubles would be over. But Bassanio says the project needs some front money.  You need money to woo a rich girl like Portia. So he says to Antonio, lend me just a little. He says that when he was a youth and when he lost one arrow, he shot another in the same direction and often retrieved both. So now. Lend me some dough so I can make love to a rich lady who has just inherited a vast fortune, and with good luck I’ll not only pay you back what you advanced me but I’ll give you all back debts I owe you.

This is the dal the two “noble” guys in Shakespeare’s play made.  Antonio says, “It’s a deal, only all my ready cash is tied up in my ships, and I’ll not be able to lay my hands on ready cash for ninety days or so.”

And so they go to Shylock to borrow the money.

How could we help but sense that Shakespeare was writing an indictment of the hypocrites who vitiated every precept taught them by Christianity? Shylock is a widower. He has only one daughter, Jessica, who falls in love with Lorenzo, a Gentile. The “good” guys induce her not only to desert her widowed father but to rob him, and dressed in boy’s clothing ( a third crime in Jewish law).  Jessica steals away in the night to elope with Lorenzo.

I will make fast the doors, and gild myself

With some more ducats, and be with you straight.

Based on Western law Jessica has committed the crime of theft. She has also committed the moral crime of stealing out of her father’s house during the night and deserting him, and as the young thief comes away with her father’s money, what do the “good” guys say? Gratiano exclaims;

Now, by my hood, a Gentile and no Jew!

Can you imagine how the audience howled with glee as Jessica was leaving Shylock’s house with his caskets of money? Shakespeare probably figured that during this howling the audience would miss the follow up line. You have deserted your father, stolen out of his house  during the night dressed in boy’s clothing, and robbed him of his money, and NOW you are a Gentile, and , by my hood, no Jew. The playwright set his 1598 audience to howling. The poet-philosopher wrote for all future generations.

Later on, the “bad” guys, Shylock and his friend Tubal, are discussing Jessica’s theft and desertion. Tubal tells Shylock that Jessica had exchanged one of the rings she had stolen for a monkey.  Says Shylock, “I wish she hadn’t pawned that ring. That was Leah’s turquoise. That was my wife’s ring; she gave it to me before we were married. I wish she hadn’t pawned that ring for a monkey.” This from a Jew money lender in the Anti- Semetic atmosphere of the sixteenth century.  For the first time in seven hundred years of “Jew” literature in Europe, a writer had given a Jew a motive. Then he put the cloak of “human being” around him.  “I wouldn’t have taken a whole wilderness of monkeys for Leah’s ring,” says Shylock.

Bassanio invites Shylock to supper and the Jew replies;

Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into.

The Italics are mine and I say that no Christian writer, before or since Shakespeare, has dared to put such “blasphemy” in the mouth of a “heretic.” Nor has a Christian writer shown such cynicism about the hypocritical  setup, as when Shakespeare has Launcelot, one of the “good” guys, say that we had better be careful about converting so many Jews to Christianity; all we’ll be doing is raising the price of pork.

But it is in one of the subplots of the play, with the three caskets and Portia’s suitors, that Shakespeare gives us the key to his purpose. One of the suitors is Morocco, a black man, and in the year 1598 Shakespeare has him speak these amazing lines;

Mislike me not for my complexion,

The shadowed livery of the burnished sun,

To whom I am neighbor and near bred.

 “Bring me the fairest blond from your northern forests, make the incisions and you’ll find my blood as red as his,” says Morocco .  Thus Morocco’s brief part in the play unlocks the door to the whole business.  Shylock asks, “When you prick us, do we not bleed?” Morocco, Shylock, Antonio- under the skin all men are brothers.

Shakespeare leads us up to the clincher. The audience and the players are now waiting for the big moment before the court where Shylock is bringing his suit against Antonio, the merchant, for his pound of flesh. Portia enters disguised as a lawyer and what does she say? What are her first words at this final showdown between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys?  Portia asks a most natural question:

Which is the Merchant here, and which the Jew?

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are standing before the court. Portia has never seen either one of them before, but as an educated gentlewoman she has behind her the culture of many centuries of the stereotyped Jew. If not actually with horns, you certainly can recognize the “devil” a mile away. And there he is ten feet away- she has a fifty fifty chance at making a guess between the “good” guy and the “bad” guy but she won’t risk it.

Which is the Merchant here, and which the Jew?

And when it all goes against Shylock, Shakespeare seems to go out of his way to give us a frightening picture of the “victors.”  He has them standing together pouring out a stream of vengeance. We’re not through with you yet Jew, and the money we have left you after you have paid all these fines, you must leave that to Jessica and your son in law who robbed you. Shakespeare keeps them hissing their hate.  Tarry yet a while, Jew, we’re still not through with you. You must also become a Christian. The final irony.  The gift offered in an atmosphere which is blue with hatred. And as all of this is going on, Shakespeare leaves only Shylock with a shred of dignity!

I pray you, give me leave to go from hence.

__________________________________________________

Written by Harry Golden in The Carolina Israelite- 1961

Also published in “Only In America ” by Harry Golden

Public Prayer - Calling God "God"

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling kind of caught me off guard. I knew the Court was going to come down in favor of Public Prayer; and I am not in disagreement over that point; but I was surprised that they would uphold Sectarian Prayer. After all, this is really the heart of the issue.

Very few people have a problem with public prayer; per se. I fall into this category. It doesn’t bother me in the least when the government invokes the name of God. I find it comforting. What makes me uncomfortable is when the government gives Him a name. In the Navy the Chaplain always referred to God as "Our Father", as in the Psalm. Nobody ever complained about that back then. Today that would be offensive to some women.

Generally speaking, people believe in God in one way or another. Atheists have no horse in this race as far as I can see, since you cannot protest what you profess not to believe in. Those who do believe just call him by different names. There’s Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, along with a whole cluster of other Gods too numerous to mention here. And, of course, some of us just call Him God. That last category is representative of me. I believe in God. Just plain old God. Kind of like the picture above. He has His good days and bad days; just like you and me, only on a larger scale.

The question really boils down to this; if I can respect your God by calling him God; which doesn't offend you; then why can’t you respect my beliefs by calling him God instead of Jesus or Allah etc. when in a public forum? It seems so simple. And it’s inclusive rather than divisive. Isn't that what religion is supposed to do?

Then there is the legalistic aspect of this issue. Town Meetings; Zoning Commission Hearings; etc, all result in legal consequences, just as in a Court of Law where you are asked to swear an Oath to God. Give me an oath to Jesus, and as a Jew I might not feel morally bound to an entity in which I do not believe. Would it still be perjury? This is inconsistency in its worst incarnation. It is embarrassing to me as an American  that the Justices do not understand this.

Also there is nothing as rude as being invited to a town meeting, or high school reunion for that matter; where the people in charge know there will be multiple faiths represented; then having a blessing representative of only a portion of those present.

This is akin to Shylock being offered dinner at the home of Basanio in “The Merchant of Venice.” He is welcome to come and eat of the pork which Antonio’s own prophet; Jesus; would have had to decline. This is the exact same position that people of various faiths are placed in when you invite them to a meeting; or reunion; and then conduct a prayer which excludes them. Think about it; and then tell me “What Jesus Would Do”.

The illustration at the top is the face of God as envisioned by Michelangelo. Kind of how I see him myself.

"Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight" with Frank Langella (2013)

In 1964 Muhammad Ali declared his status as a conscientious objector based on his beliefs as a Black Muslim. The War in Vietnam was heating up at the same time that the Civil Rights struggle was coming to a head. This film covers the years between Ali’s initial declaration that he would not fight and the culmination of the Supreme Court Case arising from the Draft Evasion charges, for which he was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

During the time of his appeals he worked doggedly to keep himself alive in the eyes of the public, knowing that someday he would be coming back to the world of boxing. He had that kind of faith. From appearances on TV shows, Civil Rights events and even a Broadway Show, he remained visible, and proudly determined to win this, the toughest fight of his life; the United States of America versus Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali.

The brilliance of this film is that no one plays the part of Muhammad Ali. Instead, during the course of the movie, as the Supreme Court Justices debate what to do about the case, the audience sees and hears actual film footage of Mr. Ali on those TV shows, Civil Rights protests and even a clip from the Broadway show. This manages to actually convey the reality of how divorced he was from the actual proceedings. He simply went on with his life while he waited the outcome, of which he never had any doubt. Those are his words, not mine.

Playing the part of the Supreme Court Justices are a cast of luminary actors; not the least of which are Frank Langella as  Warren Burger; Ed Begley Jr. as Harry Blackmun; and Peter Gerety as William Brennan. Christopher Plummer plays Justice John Harlan, who is pitted against Burger in the struggle to keep the court free of political influence.

Barry Levinson plays Potter Stewart; John Bedford Lloyd portrays Byron 'Whizzer' White; Fritz Weaver takes a turn as Hugo Black; while Harris Yulin  and Danny Glover play Justices William Douglas and Thurgood Marshall, respectively. All are excellent in their roles. (Glover is especially humorous in his treatment of the wily Marshall, who recused himself from the case because he had been involved in a lower court ruling on the same case.)

The Chief Justice is beholden to the President, who wants the conviction to stand. The justices are almost divided, but Ali loses the case by a 5-3 vote. But then the astonishing happens; a law clerk assigned to Harlan is actually able to change the minds of not only the Chief, but several others along the way. When the Court debates the case again, Ali’s conviction is overturned.

Remarkable for its acting and the events themselves, this is a film you do not want to miss. It has everything you could hope for in the treatment of this case. It is historically accurate and captures all the tension of the era, while giving full view to what life is like behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court. 

"Out of Order" by Sandra Day O'Connor (2013)

The most remarkable thing about this book is that it has never been written before; but then again, we never had a Supreme Court Justice like Sandra O’Connor before either. An accomplished author, the Honorable Justice has taken all of the tales about the Supreme Court; its history, it’s members, it’s legends and tall tales; and place them all in one book.

With the same style and dry sense of humor which marked her previous memoirs, the Justice has written an account of the daily workings of the Supreme Court in the 21^st Century, and how those changes reflect the changes of our constantly changing nation. The Court is really kind of a mirror of whom we are, and if we don’t like what we see, then we have to make the changes ourselves.

History buffs will enjoy all of the minutiae in the book, as well as some funny stories about the Justices themselves; both living and deceased. Some were liked by their colleagues, some were loathed. The important thing being portrayed here is that the Justices are just people, entrusted with the care of the Law in our nation, and as outlined in the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Exploring the appointments of the various Presidents lends a unique insight into history. There have been only 3 Presidents who never made an appointment to the Court. There have also been issues which the Court has come head to head with the Executive branch in their attempt to interpret the meaning of the law under our Constitution.

Sometimes they have gotten it wrong, as in Plessy v Ferguson, the so-called “separate but equal” ruling in the late 19^th Century. That mistake stood for 50 years, or more, but the point is that it was corrected. We live in an elastic nation, and Justice O’Connor has written a book that does our Court system, and the people who have set on the bench, a great service in making them appear more “human” than they have been portrayed before. This was a very quick and enjoyable read.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act and The Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

When Doris Dukes sued Wal-Mart over unfair wages last year, and lost, something did not seem quite right with the Supreme Court's decision in the case. We all know, or should know, that American women do not have an Equal Rights Amendment. It was passed by Congress in 1973, but never ratified by the Senate. And it has largely been ignored ever since, even by women of both parties who were in a position to do something about it. I'm thinking about both Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton, who, during their respective terms as Secretary of State, travelled the world over talking about Human Rights in every country they visited. Women's Rights were also big on both of their foreign agendas. But never once have I ever heard an American woman, in a position of authority, tackle this seemingly simple issue; Equal pay for equal work.

To his credit, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law in January 2009. But, much to the discredit of all those involved in writing that law, they never addressed the employers right to enforce a policy which prohibits an employee from disclosing to another employee, how much they earn for the same job. When Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber in 2007 this was the very issue at the heart of the matter. The Courts decision essentially told her that she and her fellow female employees had no right to compensation simply because they had learned too late about the discrimination, in other words, it was okay for Goodyear to have not made full disclosure to them about their terms of employment. That was a travesty of justice, as is the Wal-Mart case decision, in which the plaintiffs amounted to more than all of the female members of our Armed Forces, who do receive equal pay by law. Where is the consistency here?

I cannot help but wonder how the Court arrived at their logic in either case. In the Lilly Ledbetter decision it is akin to telling the victim of a crime that they have no civil recourse now, based on the fact that they didn't realize the unfairness with which they were treated at the time. It flies in the face of logic, especially at the present time, when compensation is being awarded to victims of the governments Eugenics Program, in which people were sterilized by court order. Those orders were both legally and morally wrong, and compensation, such as it is, is the correct remedy. What is the difference in the legal principle involved? I fail to see it.

These two episodes have now set the stage for corporations, such as Wal-Mart, to continue to dance about, and skirt the real problem, for years to come. In this election year, all women should be concerned about this inequity. Sadly, the majority seem to be unaware of the entire issue.